The ARCS Model of Motivational Design has been used myriad times to design motivational instructions that focus on Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction in order to motivate students. The Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) is a 36-item situational measure of people's reactions to instructional materials in the light of the ARCS Model. Although the IMMS has been used often, both as a pre-test and a posttest tool serving as either a motivational needs assessment prior to instruction or a measure of people's reactions to instructional materials afterwards, the IMMS so far has not been validated extensively, taking statistical and theoretical aspects of the survey into account. This article describes such an extensive validation study, for which the IMMS was used in a self-directed instructional setting aimed at working with technology (a cellular telephone). Results of structural equation modeling (SEM) show that the IMMS can be

Background  The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative has issued guidelines for making websites better and easier to access for people with various disabilities (W3C Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines 1999). Method  The usability of two versions of a website (a non‐adapted site and a site that was adapted on the basis of easy‐to‐read guidelines) was tested with two groups of 20 participants. One group had intellectual disabilities but could read, the other group had no identified intellectual disabilities. In a 2 × 2 experimental design, it was investigated whether the easy‐to‐read website was indeed better accessible and usable for the participants with intellectual disabilities. Results  The adaptation of the website worked well for participants with intellectual disabilities. Users without identified intellectual disabilities were as effective with the adapted site as they were with the non‐adapted site. Conclusion  The results form an empirical basis for recommendations about applying guidelines for easy‐to‐read text on websites for people with intellectual disabilities.

BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance poses a threat to patient safety worldwide. To stop antimicrobial resistance, Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs; programs for optimizing antimicrobial use), need to be implemented. Within these programs, nurses are important actors, as they put antimicrobial treatment into effect. To optimally support nurses in ASPs, they should have access to information that supports them in their preparation, administration and monitoring tasks. In addition, it should help them to detect possible risks or adverse events associated with antimicrobial therapy. In this formative study, we investigate how nurses’ can be supported in ASPs by means of an eHealth intervention that targets their information needs.MethodsWe applied a participatory development approach that involves iterative cycles in which health care workers, mostly nurses, participate. Focus groups, observations, prototype evaluations (via a card sort task and a scenario-based information searching task) and interviews are done with stakeholders (nurses, managers, pharmacist, and microbiologist) on two pulmonary wards of a 1000-bed teaching hospital.ResultsTo perform the complex antimicrobial-related tasks well, nurses need to consult various information sources on a myriad of occasions. In addition, the current information infrastructure is unsupportive of ASP-related tasks, mainly because information is not structured to match nurse tasks, is hard to find, out of date, and insufficiently supportive of awareness. Based our findings, we created a concept for a nurse information application. We attuned the application’s functionality, content, and structure to nurse work practice and tasks.ConclusionsBy applying a participatory development approach, we showed that task support is a basic need for nurses. Participatory development proved useful regarding several aspects. First, it allows for combining bottom-up needs (nurses’) and top-down legislations (medical protocols). Second, it enabled us to fragmentise and analyse tasks and to reduce and translate extensive information into task-oriented content. Third, this facilitated a tailored application to support awareness and enhance patient safety. Finally, the involvement of stakeholders created commitment and ownership, and helped to weigh needs from multiple perspectives.

No abstract

Research problem: Cultural differences may be increasingly important in technical communication.Research is needed to investigate differences in document design practices and user preferences. This study examines cultural differences between Chinese and Western manuals for household appliances. Literature review: Earlier studies identified a wide range of possible differences between Chinese and Western documents, but the findings are not consistent and do not provide more generic perspectives on cultural differences. Possible reasons are the diversity of the documents used, the rather informal research designs, and relatively small sample sizes. Research question: To what extent and how do Chinese and Western manuals for household appliances differ from each other in terms of content, structure, and use of visuals? Methodology: To overcome these shortcomings, a quantitative content analysis was conducted, comparing 50 Chinese manuals and 50 Western manuals for household appliances. The coding scheme was based on earlier research findings and focused on content, structure, and the use of visuals. Results and conclusions: The results show that the content of Chinese manuals is less strictly confined to the function of user support than that of Western manuals. Compared to Western manuals, the structure of Chinese manuals appears to be fuzzier and less rigid. Regarding visuals, Chinese manuals contain more non-instrumental, entertaining illustrations than Western manuals. Underlying these differences is a more general distinction between highly instrumental Western manuals and more flexible Chinese manuals. These differences seem to point to two cultural dimensions: holistic versus analytic thinking and analog versus digital cultures.